Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 36

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

Stho002 et al

Checkuser on User: Bioref

I suspect the user Bioref (talkcontribsblock logall projects) to be User: Stho002 who was blocked indefinitely 16 months ago. He refuses to conform to our rules, and he made an abusive post towards me on his talk page (deleted). He was consequently blocked by User:Pigsonthewing for 3 days. He's back now and he still uses formatting unacceptable by WS. See for example Pheidole protaxi and Megaselia bisticta - edits which he made today.

I would like to request a formal Checkuser on User: Bioref. Please sign below your stand. The poll is due to close on 8th May. Mariusm (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: The last time this happened we were advised to seek consensus before the CheckUser was permitted, hence the poll. Subsequently User:Stho002 was banned indefinitely and also retired himself. If he wishes to return then there are mechanisms, including a personal appeal or seeking advocacy from a sympathetic sysop or editor. Opening multiple accounts simply in order to circumvent a ban is not acceptable, surely? Andyboorman (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ban evasion is of course a legitimate reason. Who asked you to get consensus for a check? They might have just been trying to ensure that it wasn't being used for political control. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Start here [1] and here [2] Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be a bit frank, the "requirement" to get community consensus for a check was a quite novel interpretation of policy by a former steward who is no longer a steward. It is certainly not working practice of the vast majority of stewards, at least it wasn't when I was one. --Rschen7754 00:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: New sockpuppet: Targaremini (talkcontribsblock logall projects) --Murma174 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: @Murma174: I have blocked the account for three days subject to the pending CheckUser with a method of reply to me - see here Targaremini (talkcontribsblock logall projects) Andyboorman (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Mariusm (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Murma174 (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Andyboorman (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MPF (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PeterR (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Too many suspected sockpuppets now. CU required to make clear, if an IP-range block is possible. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]



# It seems quite obvious to me that this is the usual duck. The account can be closed down also without, but CU would be helpful to be absolutely sure. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CU is now requested at Meta. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Stho002 User talk page?

As I wrote before, CU is now requested at Meta. But the question is if we can get a IP-range block or not, and if User:Stho002 will turn up with new User names?

There is presently some discussions on Stewards' noticeboard at Meta with accusations from User:Stho002 that

WS sysops are abusing their powers, specifically using threats of CU as a political tool to enforce territoriality and keep unwanted contributors away (see relevant CU policy here), addressing CU requests as a political tool to enforce territoriality and exclude contributors, and referring to some users as a mob of agressively territorial WS editors and sysops.

Another accusation says

Wikimedia is brought into disrepute if it is seen to be controlled by sysop mobs who exclude other contributors and have full control over content and who can or cannot contribute. This is an extremely serious issue which threatens the very core of Wikimedia credibility. I am saddened that no steward appears to have the integrity to address these serious issues or to escalate them to the attention of WMF.

I personally find those accusations rather serious, and instead of getting angry, I started asking myself, is there a risk that we, the Wikispecies community, have behaved unnecessarily hard, and that we could have handled this issue better, when we even closed out User:Stho002 from editing his talk page?

Im fully aware that discussions on his user talk page could be annoying, but you can simply look away without reading them, and they could be time limited, and conditioned, and serve as a possibility for Stho002 to communicate a change of attitude. I do want to remind everyone that he not only has a history of abusing the project, but also has contributed with a huge lot of good-faith work. In the name of humanity, I suggest that we, as a community, open up User:Stho002s talk page, so he can communicate. This can be anything from permanent, to some limited time daily, all weekends, once a month, or whatever you may find suitable.

The reason why I do this, is because in this particular case, where I have blocked Stho002 several times, and recently voted FOR a CU-check, I, in the role as a bureaucrat, feel uncomfortable with the present accusations against Wikispecies project on META. I would be happy for all ideas to keep WS reputation spotless clean, to make sure that we don't appear to enforce territoriality and keep unwanted contributors away, and one point may be to give Stho002 access to his talk page? YOU may have alternative suggestions?

I would like to know if the community would like to unblock User: Stho002s talk page. Please sign below your stand.

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • He has a long history of using highly offensive behaviour and language towards other users, regardless of whether he had formal access under his primary account or posted via sockpuppets. "Serious", but actually unsubstantiated, accusations of ill-treatment are also a major part of his appeals to others not familiar with his longer-term habits - don't fall for crocodile tears. For this reason, I would not support any restoration of access. - MPF (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To throw in my own opinion as someone dragged into this from meta, conversations can be good - if they lead somewhere. A lot of long-term abusers make very good content contributions but cannot interact with others in a positive manner, and there is certainly the potential for unlocking the talk page to just lead to endless rehashing of the same arguments. But there is also the potential for it to go somewhere else, and to have a positive result where the user can re-join the community to continue making good contributions, while staying away from previous controversial areas. If you can focus on those sorts of conditional unblocks, then that might be best for everyone. Of course, I don't know anything about the local context, so it's all up to you :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because Stho002 creates an atmosphere on WS, that frustrates and demoralizes other users. We already lost several active users not because of Dan and Tommy (as Stho002 is claiming again and again), but because of his insulting behavior. No, in recognition of all his contributions. --Murma174 (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion may be a trifle premature, as Stho002 has made a promise on the Steward Notice Board "By the way, I can't see any of this making much difference. I will continue to use my unique IP to make constructive contributions to WS, any way I can (and it is technically pretty easy). I will not however exploit any of the many other IPs which I have easy access to, for fear of collateral damage. At least I care about the innocent and don't pander to the guilty. Pity others don't seem to ...". In others words more sockpuppetry aimed at avoiding his ban is likely. How will the Stewards respond? Perhaps @Ajraddatz: can give us an opinion. It is always good to discuss, but not when held hostage IMO. If it was not for this I would be with Tommy Andyboorman (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may be right there @Andyboorman:, maybe its time to renew the work with Local CU Policy? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems, he is determined to force his way back by all means. Under these circumstances, any discussion most likely will end in bellicose arguments. Anyway, maybe it is nevertheless worth the try. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies for the slow reply; I've said this in an email to Dan Koehl, but I'll put it here as well. It seems to me that Stho002 is moving on to bigger and better things, so hopefully this is completely resolved as of now. I will be checking back periodically to ensure that no further accounts are being made to by-pass the ban here, and will block any IP addresses or ranges as needed, or inform admins in ways that do not violate the privacy policy. If there are any other accounts made that you see, you may request checks of them at m:SRCU - no prior community discussion is required. We can then provide you with any other accounts being used, and get a better idea of some of these other IP ranges that he has threatened to use. At the moment, there is no observable collateral damage from blocking his IPs, and the autoblock is handling it well. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  1. It seems fair that he gets a channel to communicate through. Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  1. MPF (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Murma174 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PeterR (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Andyboorman (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Franz Xaver (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result from CU

Result from Checkuser requested at Meta:

Quite a few of the listed accounts are stale. The user in question is using one range that I can find. There are some confirmed accounts which remain unblocked on species: Flycatcher007, Pachliopta, Gelechiidae, Noctuoidea, Leiodidae. I cannot disclose the IP, but can discretely block it if needed. I am also in the process of contacting enwiki CheckUsers regarding potential abuse on that project as well. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Following confirmed accounts has now been blocked on species: User:Flycatcher007, User:Pachliopta, User:Gelechiidae, User:Noctuoidea, and User:Leiodidae.

Dan Koehl (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Local CU Policy

@Dan Koehl: @Tommy Kronkvist: @Faendalimas: @Franz Xaver: @Accassidy: @Green Giant: @Mariusm: @Neferkheperre: @Jianhui67: @MKOliver: @MPF: @Murma174: @PeterR: @Ajraddatz:, as active crats, participants here and in the previous CU discussions. I agree strongly with Dan we need to resurrect the implementation of our Local CU Policy, particularly as it was so advanced a year ago with Faendalimas prepared to produce the required pages after fruitful discussion and the poll. I appreciate that it was a mistake that we let things go in May 2015. However, I do not think we need another in depth discussion or poll, just to resurrect the initiative with some urgency. The first steps would be to transfer this to its own section for additional up to date comment and ask Faendalimas for a quick progress report. Comments ASAP? Andyboorman (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, though I fear that despite being a crat, I don't have the faintest idea how it works! But yes, it's needed. - MPF (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Creating the policy is the easy part. Most projects struggle with getting enough support on individual requests for the checkuser permission. There need to be 25 supports and 80% support overall for each successful candidate. You can of course advertise the votes on public forums, and there are in theory enough active users here to elect local checkusers. I'm not sure what past stewards have told you, but you can always request checks of obvious socks at m:SRCU without a prior local discussion, which would reduce the need for local users to hold these permissions. But I also understand the benefits to doing things "in-house", rather than needing to go to meta and justify every request for a check there. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes my apologies for starting this and not finishing. I got tied up at the time. I have just returned from nearly a month overseas so have not been checking things of late. Ok at the time it was pointed out to me that as has been said we can of course request a CU when needed through the Stewards. There is a fairly strict process for the election of local CU's and it is often seen as almost impossible to meet the requirements on small wikis's. That said I think it is in our interest to try. But before we do, I think we should have a realistic discussion of whether it is needed here. Here is the crunch how many times has the option to do a CU actually been required in recent times? I know a few have been done but not many. Should we invest the effort of formalising the process here, or with so few occurances are we better off just bringing it to the Stewards on those odd occasions we need it. Cheers Faendalimas talk 23:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boies will be Boies

I've just changed Boie from a redirect to Heinrich Boie into a disambig page, to add Friedrich Boie, who'd been left out despite already having a page. There's an awful lot of pages that link to Boie that need disambiguating though, and many of them should refer to Friedrich rather than Heinrich. I'll do some myself, but anyone else who wants to join in with sorting, please do! - MPF (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata and organization of items of genuses related to single species

Sorry to bother you.

After dealing with doubts especially interacting with itwiki users, I have asked at the village pump of wikidata a question about these genus and species items where basically there is only one species for the genus, and different languages use different titles but often link to the same item. It is here.

I hope it was not confusing for the other users as it was for me, but I am linking the discussion so I can be sure it is "universally accepted". This way next time a newbie ask me something I know that what I am saying is correct.

So every expert comment is welcome, if you have time.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion mentioned above two things are mixed up:
1. For a monotypic Genus Wikispecies uses one page for the Genus and another one page for the Species, and Wikidata should also do that IMO (for structural reasons).
2. Of course the Genus page and the Species page refer to the exact same living (or extinct) being, so Wikipedias might decide, NOT to create two different pages. Some list the Genus and some list the Species (I'd prefer the Species concept).
--Murma174 (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. P.S. How to solve the interwiki linking problem, should not be discussed here, but on Wikidata. --Murma174 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About <noinclude> and </noinclude> tags

Hi everyone,

I am trying to collaborate with the Spanish translation of that project, but I have a doubt that I want to resolve before to post the translation. Well, my first question is, if one English article (in this case Template:Welcome has <noinclude> </noinclude> tags, do I have to translate that? I mean, write the tags (in English of course) on the Spanish translation, or does it should be removed in the translation? There is an example:

  • English article. <noinclude></noinclude>Cat ipsum dolor sit amet, run in circles ignore the squirrels<noinclude></noinclude>
  • Spanish article. It should be translated in this way, <noinclude></noinclude>Cat ipsum dolor sit amet, run in circles ignore the squirrels <noinclude></noinclude> (I mean with the tags) or in that way: Cat ipsum dolor sit amet, run in circles ignore the squirrels.

Sorry if I am not explaining in the proper way :/ I hope that someone could help me clarifying that. Thanks in advance! Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem ;) You always have to put the same tags as the original text (and of course in English). Archi38 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All right! I will keep that in mind. Ivanhercaz (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then, reading Help:Translation and another help articles, I have understand that the method to post an translation is use the "Export" on Special:Translate and then copy the code exported and paste it on the new article. Am I right? Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To translate a page, you have to click on Translate this page at top of pages, then, click on translation units. Export is a feature to enable people to translate offline Archi38 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About it I have a doubt: I translate Template:Welcome Spanish like you have said but, how is added to the box languages? I mean that in the top of the article show a box with the language options. Does an translation administrator approve to be post? Ivanhercaz (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I send a ping to @Archi38: who is probably best at explaining this stuff. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Of course, I'm the "translation master" :) Archi38 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks you so much :)
@Archi38: Thanks for your help! Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, you're invited to vote on this page to decide if we accept Flow or not. Archi38 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short explanation – what is Flow?
  • Flow is a project for building a modern discussion and collaboration system for Wikimedia projects.
  • It provides features that are present on most modern websites, but which are not possible to implement in wikitext. For example, Flow automatically signs users' posts on talk pages, threads replies, and permits per-topic notifications.
  • The main goals for the Flow project are:
  1. to make the wiki discussion system more accessible for new users
  2. to make the wiki discussion system more efficient for experienced users
  3. to encourage meaningful conversations that support collaboration
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Concensus reached. Created task in the Phabricator Archi38 (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are - in under a mere three days - four editors in favour, and one against. That's neither a consensus, nor sufficient time for one to emerge. What is the ticket number in Phabricator? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's T134898. Oh and I forgot to say that there's a testing step only on a try page. Archi38 (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Andy here. So far way too few editors in favour, and above all far too short time. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Ed Gilbert aka Edmund F. Giesbert - actor and entomologist

This discussion on the Wikidata mailing list, may be of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

interesting ! Archi38 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cross wiki notifications will be released by default on May 12 at 23:00 UTC.


Cross wiki notifications will be released by default on all wikis on May 12 at 23:00 UTC

During the beta phase, the cross-wiki notifications feature was enabled by over 18,000 accounts across more than 360 wikis. We receive great feedback from a lot of very happy users. After that 3-months long beta period during which we made adjustments and that feature is now ready for a release by default.

Users who don't want to receive cross-wiki notifications will be able to turn them off on their preferences on each wiki. If you haven't activated Cross-wiki Notifications during the Beta phase, you may receive old unread notifications from other wikis.

More information is available on the documentation. The talk page is still open for any questions or feedback, in any language.

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unconnected Pages to Wikidata

Hello, I found 9933 pages without Wikidata item on it. I think I'll work on it. Unfortunatly bots didn't do that because page names on Species are in Latin. Archi38 (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking not many of the scientific names of taxa are made up of pure and proper latin, but regardless of that I'll try to help out with a bunch of the unconnected pages. :-) Now there's a full 10 000 of them – let's shrink that number! Also, I added a tweet about it to our @Wikispecies Twitter account.Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 20:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Why doesn't a Wikidata bot do that job? --Murma174 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One issue might be that a bot perhaps have a hard time understanding that "Carrion crow", "Corneille noire", "cornacchia" and Corvus corone is the same item? It's probably easier with Wikidata items such as "Humphrey Bogart" and "Kenya". I'm just guessing here, but still. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Is there an easy way to reach Wikidata from a new Wikispecies page? If I try to link to Wikidata ('Add links') from e.g. Bakuella, I'm asked to which language I want to connect, but not, whether I want to create a new item. --Murma174 (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. When editing with Firefox, I'm asked for another language version, with IE I'm asked for creating a new item ?? --Murma174 (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Andy's post "Useful Wikidata script" posted here at the VP in April 21. It's a great script for reaching a specific Wikidata page directly from its Wikispecies equivalent – and if no such Wikidata page exists, instead the link will help you create one, complete with the correct Wikispecies link and all. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, works, thank you! --Murma174 (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked someone experienced in such matters to take a look; but one other issue is the relative lack of structured (templated) data in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bakuella is done meanwhile. Another example: Sterkiella --Murma174 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: After creating the page Annulopatellinidae the js-Script says: 'Wikidata item not found', although there is a corresponding page in eswiki: w:es:Annulopatellinidae and there is a wikidata-item already: d:Q12155818. So if I had followed the link of the js-Script, I would have produced a duplicate item on Wikidata. That can't be intended. --Murma174 (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is intended that the user will check first; but if they fail to do so, duplicates on Wikidata can be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, doing a search first is a very good habit. @Murma174: That said, perhaps one should point out that merging duplicate Wikidata items is very easy: the process is semi-automatic, whereas merging pages in Wikispecies is 100% "manual labour". In almost all Wikidata cases the only thing one has to focus on is merging the two items in the right "direction", so to speak. Most often a newer item should be merged into the first, original Wikidata item, but not always. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

A new "Welcome" dialog

Hello everyone. This is a heads-up about a change which has just been announced in Tech News: Add the "welcome" dialog (with button to switch) to the wikitext editor.

In a nutshell, later this week this will provide a one-time "Welcome" message in the wikitext editor which explains that anyone can edit, and every improvement helps. The user can then start editing in the wikitext editor right away, or switch to the visual editor. (This is the equivalent of an already existing welcome message for visual editor users, which suggests the option to switch to the wikitext editor. If you have already seen this dialog in the visual editor, you will not see the new one in the wikitext editor.)

  • I want to make sure that, although users will see this dialog only once, they can read it in their language as much as possible. Please read the instructions if you can help with that.
  • I also want to underline that the dialog does not change in any way current site-wide and personal configurations of the visual editor. Nothing changes permanently for users who chose to hide the visual editor in their Preferences or for those who don't use it anyway, or for wikis where it's still a Beta Feature, or for wikis where certain groups of users don't get the visual editor tab, etc.
    • There is a slight chance that you see a few more questions than usual about the visual editor. Please refer people to the documentation or to the feedback page, and feel free to ping me if you have questions too!
  • Finally, I want to acknowledge that, while not everyone will see that dialog, many of you will; if you're reading this you are likely not the intended recipients of that one-time dialog, so you may be confused or annoyed by it—and if this is the case, I'm truly sorry about that. This message also avoids that you have to explain the same thing over and over again—just point to this section. Please feel free to cross-post this message at other venues on this wiki if you think it will help avoid that users feel caught by surprise by this change.

If you want to learn more, please see; if you have feedback or think you need to report a bug with the dialog, you can post in that task (or at if you prefer).

Thanks for your attention and happy editing, Elitre (WMF) 16:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elitre (WMF): Thank you for the heads-up. Just a few minutes ago I created an account and got confirmation + user rights as a translator on, and will start helping out soon. All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Who knows the idntity from Wlodzimierz? He don't make author templates and add species with spage. See Bouvardia juarezana PeterR (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You refer to User:Wlodzimierz. Please notify users if you discuss them here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, PeterR. I am not that interested in authors at the moment. This is why I use template aut, not a. And I don't really understand the point raised about page template? Is it wrong to use it? Can you explain me in detail what are the problems with it? Cheers, --Wlodzimierz (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template Spage

Does anybody want to speak up in defense of {{Spage}} before it gets deleted in the very near future? Andyboorman (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{Spage}} is a simple, useful and primarily timesaving tool. Orchi (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Spage is used on several thousand taxon pages. Simply deleting it may cause considerable appearance problems. It is not constructed as Nomen and Syn box templates were, where content became visible upon disabling templates. Yes, it is nice and simple, but some things cannot be done when using it. I am manually removing it as I revise my Cirripedia pages. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One elemental problem with this particular template is that there is no documentation whatsoever on the template's page, telling new users how to use it. That's of course relatively easy to fix, but in my opinion we should simply delete the template instead. There are several reasons for this standpoint, but here's the main one: Todays praxis for taxon page formatting is easy to grasp, also to newcomers. There's one "Taxonavigation" section, one "Name" section, and one "References" section. It's rather self explanatory what kind of data goes into which section, and they're all clearly and distinctly separated by ==Their Headlines==. Not much room for errors or misunderstandings, which is good.
Sadly, the {{Spage}} template changes this. For instance, take a look at the Calectasia grandiflora page. The layout is simple and legible, with Taxonavigation, Name, and References sections, just as it should be. The page complies to more or less everything stated in the Wikispecies help texts, which a new user hopefully is familiar with. Now put yourself in that new user's shoes, and hit the "edit" button. You will be faced with this page, including the wiki code. You recognise most stuff: there's the "Taxonavigation" section, and sure enough the "References" as well. But wait – what on Earth happened to the "Name" section?? How come it has vanished from the code, yet it is still fully visible on the taxon page itself? Surely the Calectasia genus can't have been revised in between my two clicks..? This behaviour is confusing and from a pedagogical point of view rather awful, and should IMO be avoided.
On the issue of deleting the {{Spage}} and @Neferkheperre:s considerations: The template only does three things:
  1. It adds Species: ''[[{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]'' and a line break last in the taxonavigation section,
  2. then adds ==Name== in order to create the name section and its headline,
  3. lastly adds ''{{BASEPAGENAME}}'' immediately below the name section headline, to show the species name.
That's it. The template can't handle any arguments, so nothing else ever happens. I agree that simply deleting the template right off the bat would create havoc in all the taxon pages where it is utilized, but if we first use AWB to change the text string {{Spage}} into the text string Species: ''[[{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]''<br>==Name==<br>''{{BASEPAGENAME}}''&nbsp; on every page, then the template will no longer be used on any pages, and can safely be deleted. (Note regarding the code string: the trailing &nbsp; at the end is necessary in order to ensure a space is created between the species name, and the author name that should follow.)
Phew… :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Agree! Moreover, when subspecific taxa have to be added later, this cannot be done without replacing the template. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The template is small, timesaving and very easy to use. The documentation page can easily be written, and this should not be reason for deletion. I think including new section (Name) within template was quite good invention because this template prints out on the screen the invariable parts of those first sections. Also, it stops right before the author name, so the first new thing to include in a page is author's name and then the Reference section (this can be explained in template documentation page). When you finalize the work for bot to go through Spage including pages and to overwrite it with the proposed text, the template should be deleted and there should be a regulation against use of such templates (although I think that would be in vain). This kind of template is quite common all over other wikimedia projects, so the newcomers from other project easily grasp it and use it. And the future newcomers will readily create such templates and we will have this same situation all over again.
Also, administrators should think about including automatized creation of sections in new pages, by creating a button in Advanced toolbar that will create the skeleton of a page (three sections) together with magic word BASEPAGENAME you insist on using here.
I would also not include redundant link towards the page itself in the replaced code. So, the change of {{Spage}} should be into the text string Species: ''{{BASEPAGENAME}}''<br/>==Name==<br/>''{{BASEPAGENAME}}''&nbsp;
The problem with adding the subspecific taxa is the first real problem with the template. And this kind of problem will not be experienced by newcomers, and also we do not have subspecific taxa commonly. This is why I advocate this kind of button in Advanced toolbar, that will automate and save time, and be easy to use, too. And as I installed myself a button, I will stop using Spage (yay!).
phew phew :) --Wlodzimierz (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If people find the template easy to use when creating pages, but it subsequently causes confusion, the asnwer is to Subst: it - a bot could do so on a regular basis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Andy's suggestion seems to have real merit. Andyboorman (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think replace then delete it. Its problematic with its usage as has been pointed out. Plus I thought, correct me if I am wrng, we had decided some time ago to stop using {{BASEPAGENAME}}. In anycase that it does not have modifiers for particular circumstances is more trouble than its worth. However it does need to be replaced first. Cheers Faendalimas talk 18:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, using of magic word basepagename was also decided against? This becomes weird to me. I've seen administrators using it. Usually decisions against particular magic words and templates are best implemented through bot actions, as Andy Mabbet suggested. So, whoever comes to wikispecies can use Spage and type the magic words on partcular places, but subsequently bot will go through all pages and change them to better format. --Wlodzimierz (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been removing BASEPAGENAME when I find it too; it causes problems when a taxon has its rank changed (e.g. a species lumped in as a subspecies of another species). Better to keep everything fully named, so that it is clear for editors to know what text to change in editing. Same can be said for Spage, though (perhaps oddly!) I'd not run into it anywhere yet. - MPF (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree that IF used, Species: ''{{BASEPAGENAME}}'' should be to Subst:ed. There has been discussions when I Subst:ed it when using AWB, why I stopped doing that, but my opinion is that Wikispecies shouldn't go into its own way in regard to code, design and layout, it should follow the standards other Wikimedia wikis follow. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── So to finalize, should we keep the template or aim to rid us from it? I vote for deletion. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

.... for a uniform format I wait for the use of a bot which all reformat. Change by hand does not seem to make sense to me Orchi (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is for deletion and a bot. Andyboorman (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, substitute by a bot, then delete. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ditto --Murma174 (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fill the gaps!

Just to let you know that the Dictionary of Welsh Species has now become an Illustrated Dictionary of Species. It also includes clickbacks to corresponding articles on Wicipedia Cymraeg (Welsh language Wikipedia). All thanks to Wikimedia UK and the University of Bangor. All 10,000 Welsh bird names are on Wikidata, but there's quite a few images of birds missing on Commons, and if anyone can help fill the gaps, there's a Wikiproject here. Another, easier way, is to use the WikiData Free Image Search Tool on wmflabs, click run to generate a list and away you go! Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the Welsh names need capitalising correctly, though (e.g. Llinos Bengoch, not llinos bengoch) - MPF (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, should have been done as they were uploaded onto WD. I'll drop them a line. Thanks! Any other suggestions? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a number of English names which also need changing. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I find similar cases from time to time and change them whenever I see them ;-) MPF (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Llywelyn2000: most of the Welsh names at wikidata have been capitalised now in the top section, but it looks to be the ones lower down, at the end of the 'Statements' section (just above 'Identifiers') that more need correcting, as they're the ones adding Welsh names to e.g. the VN on Commons pages. - MPF (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: How very decent of you! Brilliant! I'll try and finish them off after the next weekend. So much to do! Diolch! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Diolch yn fawr! - MPF (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation please: Acrocephalus schoenobaenus

Can someone confirm that this image on Commons is in fact the Acrocephalus schoenobaenus? One of our ornithologists in Wales believes that it has too much yellow and that the colour of its legs is too light, not dark enough. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the colour of the legs just about ok (Collins). Photo maybe taken in bad light? Change from prefered image in Wikidata to another? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is the extremly rare species Acrocephalus paludicola. I am not really an expert. So, additionally you may put your question also at de:Wikipedia:Redaktion_Biologie/Bestimmung. They would understand English, no problem. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Franz! I've done that now. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any other thoughts by other users? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Acrocephalus schoenobaenus is correct; the "too much yellow" is a colour balance problem with the photo. The plumage pattern fits A. schoenobaenus fully, and lacks important A. paludicola characters like the pale stripes down the mantle, and the unstreaked pale central crown stripe (compare here). - MPF (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Taxonav-Boxes don't collapse anymore. Tested with FF and IE. Anything OK on your system? Problem on my side? Murma174 (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, after a brief interval - see Ericaceae and the newly edited template Actinidiaceae. I am using Chrome. Andyboorman (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Andyboorman:. After a PC newstart it's working fine again. Time for a new PC obviously, still working with XP. --Murma174 (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protists: Things To Do

Hi, I have been working in some protist pages (creation of alternative classifications, creation of referenced pages for genera), but now I'm leaving Wikispecies for a time. However, I would like to make some suggestions (should I include them in Wikispecies:Done and to do? Or in Talk:Protista?):

Discussion moved to Talk:Protista --Murma174 (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Bitte beachtet die Löschdiskussion zur Vorlage {{Wikispecies}}. Ich bitte um fachkundige Diskussionsbeiträge dort, insbesondere da die Qualität von Wikispecies dort in Frage gestellt wird. (Ping an Dan Koehl, Franz Xaver, Murma174, Orchi, T.seppelt, Wikiklaas) Boshomi (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (sorry for german).[reply]

The above relates to a proposal to delete the template {{Wikispecies}} on the German-language. Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't read German . . . anyone willing to give a brief English summary of the discussion there please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Summary (very brief): User:Boshomi created the template: w:de:Vorlage:Wikispecies in the same way as w:de:Vorlage:Commons for linking to the sister project. An IP deleted the template, because there was no consensus to create the template, another user reverted the deletion, the IP deleted again ... (edit war). The link above leads to the discussion, whether the template should be deleted or not. Some users are arguing, the link in the sidebar is enough attention for Wikispecies. Other users say, Wikispecies is a sister project like Commons and should be treated like Commons. --Murma174 (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Why do some there want to delink Species? - MPF (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very active on dewiki, just getting a snapshot of the discussion: Wikispecies is incomplete, outdated and doesn't contain useful information for de-WP. In this thread there's one user mainly stirring things up. --Murma174 (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went through some discussions with this guy before, and both felt offended, as well as highly sceptical that 1-4 actually was the consensus in Dewiki. Bit I chose to withdraw from the discussions, in order not to to bring even more negative association to WS. On some projects, the "democrazy" is simply performed by those who speak loudest, and acts like they are some sort of boss over the community. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its been relatively typical practice that WS be treated like other sister projects, so that would be my preferred outcome, however, it is probably best for dewiki to make the decision. Interference from anyone here who is not a genuine contributor to dewiki would not be seen as good form I think. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 11:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I recreated the template because I want a decision over the de facto ban of species in dewiki. The ban was made by some people in the biologic project about ten years ago. I avoided a direct discussion with these people, because there were a lot of this discussions in the past all with the same pattern. With the recreation of the template the discussion is now on a new place.Boshomi (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Boshomi: Maybe you are not aware, that this former "general ban" already has been lifted before – see de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Redaktion Biologie/Archiv/Januar 2016#Einzellink zu Wikispecies: Akzeptanz, falls Mehrwert klar gegeben (= acceptance, if surplus value is clearly given). I was not happy about your creation of this template, as this action obviousely provoked mass removal of existing wikispecies links by IP --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it does not work as of today. There are very view links, and the links get deleted very fast, if you make a new one. The ban works. Boshomi (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ridiculous! Do I get the impression that a handful of de:wiki contributors think that ws is dangerously unreliable or something? If so, they need to cite examples (maybe done; I can't read the German discussion), not delete interwiki links. On principle, both de and ws are done by self-selected volunteers; neither group is any more, or any less reliable, than the other. Those who so detest ws that they cannot abide links here, why do they not come here to edit what they see as wrong? If they are correct, their edits will be reviewed and kept; if not, their changes can be undone - and presumably their same decisions at de can be changed. No doubt there will be some errors in both; working together should remove errors from both. - MPF (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Dewiki came to the decision to

  1. keep the Wikispecies-template (and not deleting it),
  2. use it in dewiki articles on a case-by-case basis only if there is additional/valuable information on the Wikispecies page

Latest use of the template: w:de:Spezial:Linkliste/Vorlage:Wikispecies --Murma174 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Murma174: I was one of the original admins on d: and I remember that there was a strong contingent of WM-DE members who were opposed to even linking to this project, as I mentioned to @Andyboorman: on @Tommy Kronkvist:'s talk page. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: IMPORTANT: Admin activity review

A discussion about establishing a local policy of admin activity review ended with that the community is content with the present situation, since the global is fair and has sufficient debate, follow the discussion at Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_admin_activity_review Local admin activity review Dan Koehl (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox linking to Species via Wikidata

Hi, in Interlingua Wikipedia all article pages have an infobox that displays exclusively data from Wikidata and the local label. As the sitelink is not a normal property P<some number>, it is difficult to link to Species. How can it be done? ia:Template:infobox/typo/taxon currently links only to NCBI P685, WoRMS P850, EOL P830, ITIS P815, MSW P959, Dyntaxa P1939. 11:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet fully checked out the Interlingua Wiki template, but right off the bat I suggest that this Wikidata script might prove useful, at least to some extent. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
In the template there is just a check for the existence of a property, if it exists it is displayed. E.g. for Dyntaxa ID (P1939):
{{#if:{{#Property:P1939|}}|{{!}} ID Dyntaxa: [{{#Property:P1939}} {{#Property:P1939}}]}}
The JS looks a little bit big for just displaying one value. 01:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but parts of the script could probably be used to show if a Wikidata item is represented by an equivalent page on Wikispecies. In that case the script must of course be modified, and should also be copied to the Interlingua Wikipedia itself, rather than linked from the Wikidata admin's User subpage where it resides now. Here at Wikispecies we (at least some of us) use the script to automatically show whether a Wikispecies' page has got a corresponding Wikidata item or not. Check this post for details regarding that. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
So there is no way to do it in wikicode? JS is not save, users may have turned it off, some user agents may not have JS at all. And loading the code for pages that are not taxons is just using more bandwith. 09:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 Big ideas...

In the front of an old house-plant book there is a chart that is intended to help the non-scientific reader categorise a plant they may be interested in by particular characteristics, like leaves, number of petals, flower color.

I appreciate Wiki Species is trying to be scientifically precise, but a basic "Plant ID guide" either here or on Wikibooks would probably be a good idea, especially if there are reasonable quality images to draw on from Commons. I am asking here because I feel the expertise here is more focused.

The other thought was that Wikispecies should have an enquiry desk, like Wikipedia has it's reference desk, wiktionary it's Tea Room , and Wikiyoyage a "Tourist Office". Ideally this could be split between detailed technical queries, and a general "What's this item?" from a photo questions. The latter occasionally occurs on the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: I like both of these ideas. Orthodox Wiki has a category structure at the bottom of their articles that I've always thought could be useful and replicated elsewhere. As for a place for asking questions, I think this page works well enough--we don't have enough outside questions. And since there is now a place for admin requests, that clears up this page a little. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solanaceae subfamily

Should it be Browallioideae sensu GRIN, Stevens and here on WS or Cestroideae sensu Olmstead et al., Reveal and Tropicos? Any clues? I favour the later, but want to take advice. Andyboorman (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This can only be decided, after it is made clear, if the name Cestroideae has been validly establisthed by Schltdl. 1832 or by Burnett 1835. In the first case Cestroideae has priority over Browallioideae Kostel. 1834, in the second case it has not. (Also the validity of the name Browallioideae should be checked.) One important point with suprageneric taxa at that time is, if correct rank denoting terms had been used. You have to study the respective protologues and ICN. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First finding: Cestroideae Schltdl., Linnaea 7: 52. 1832, is invalidly published because of ICN Art. 37.6, as "section" is rank between genus and species, not to be used suprageneric. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second finding: Burnett 1835 used rank denoting term "type" in place of "family" and "subtype" in place of "subfamly". In a very rigid interpretation, these names might be taken for invaldly published. However, though I could not find an explicit statement in the ICN concerning their validity, these names are to be regarded as validly published. This is demonstrated by the listing of Brassicaceae Burnett, Outlines Bot.: 854, 1093, 1123. 1835, in the list of conserved family names. Conservation is a decision on legitimacy, being validly published is a prerequisite. So Cestroideae Burnett, Outlines Bot.: 985, 1095, 1106. 1835, is validly published. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Third finding: Kostel., Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 3: 939. 1834, established a "Gruppe Browallieae". At first glance, it was not clear to me, why "Gruppe" (= group) should be taken as a rank denoting term in place of "subfamily" and not "tribus". OK, at page 875 of the same work, subdivisions of a family with the same termination are named "Unterfamilien" which is equivalent to "subfamily". So, Browallioideae Kostel. 1834 seems to be validly published and has priority over Cestroideae Burnett 1835. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Franz - seems thorough and definitive. However, I have another question. von Schlechtendal in his Latin description, can be argued to use Sectio not as a suprageneric category, but as a "section" in his monograph. That is Sectio (Section) I Cestrinae, later using Sectio (Section II) II Solaneae 66. If this argument holds then does Art. 37.6 still apply? However, not withstanding this both Olmstead et al. and Reveal refer to Cestroideae Burnett (1835), therefore they must be wrong I guess. Andyboorman (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me there is no doubt that Schlechtendal meant "section" as a rank-denoting term. The first sentence makes it clear: "Ad hanc sectionem pertinent genera: ..." (= To this section belong the genera: ...) Anyway, in case your argument could be agreed on, it would be a validly published name that is inoperative according to ICN Art. 37.3, as then it misses a "clear indication of its rank". Someone else first had to use it at a definite rank. And this had to happen at an earlier data than competing names were published. Priority works only within the same definite rank. Concerning Reveal, I am not sure, if you mean his Indices Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium. If yes, this does not mean too much. This indices are only lists of validly published (= available) names. Anyway, he lists Cestroideae Burnett, 1835, not Schltdl., 1832. I am not sure, if Reveal has evaluated the work of Kosteletzky at all. Concerning Olmstead et al., you mean the paper from 1999, Phylogeny and provisional classification ...? Or the paper from 2008, A molecular phylogeny ...? If yes, obviously nomenclature was not their concern. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should have made it clearer. For Olmstead and Reveal I was referring to their references on the Solanaceae taxon page. I agree that Olmstead et al. in the 2008 paper is more interested in phylogeny, but Reveal presents the authoritative An Outline of a Classification Scheme for Extant Flowering Plants. I can not believe that he did not consider Kosteletzky, as Browallioideae was also an available subfamily name at the time he wrote the paper, but it is also not in his Indices Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium. We can only speculate that he rejected "Gruppe Browallieae" as a "clear indication of its rank", in the same manner we reject von Schlechtendal's Sectio. ("Zu diesem Abschnitt gehören zu den Gattungen:....) no I am not a linguist nor a fully fledged taxonomist!. I must make it clear that I am not arguing against your judgement, just trying to get my head around what appears to be a messy, but interesting taxonomic conundrum. So unless somebody comes up with new information, Browallioideae Kostel. (1834) it is. Thanks and regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, "Gruppe" per se is not a clear indication of rank. If we had only this, the name could be rejected as validly published, but inoperative. However, when applying Art. 37.5 and looking at other places in the same work it gets clearer. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Wikimania's pre-conference sessions and hackathon have started and I'm here in Esino Lario. If any other Wikispecies folk are , or are going to be, here, please say hello. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I met no-one involved in Wikispecies at Wikimania, and heard no discussions about the project that were not started by myself :-( Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endemism and Template EN

There has been some discussion regarding the value of endemism and the use of the Template:EN on WS. See here for an example of such a discussion. A number of contributors would like to get rid of the Template:EN and indeed question the value of adding information about endemism, particularly where it is country specific. I think it is time to start a discussion before the use of Template:EN becomes too widespread and also the use of Country Endemism in Categories. For some of my views see here, but please note I am offering them as a starting point for discussion not trying to persuade. Regards and over to you. Andyboorman (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that endemism can only be realistically dealt with by biogeographical regions; political areas make no sense. The Muscari dolichanthum is a very nice example; endemic to the western Caucasus; it was endemic to the USSR, but when the USSR broke up, it was left part in Russia, part in Georgia, endemic to neither. And as the Europe - Asia boundary runs along the Caucasus crest, it isn't even endemic to either Europe or Asia, though it is endemic to the Western Palaearctic biogeographical region. But how about instead, draw a distribution map for it and have that on the page, instead of a text description? - MPF (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the Europe-Asia boundary is drawn in the en:Kuma–Manych Depression, one of the tradionial delimitations, Muscari dolichanthum is "endemic to Asia". From a phytogeographical standpoint, the Kuma-Manych depression makes more sense, as most species of the Caucasus flora occur on both slopes, whereas for lowland species it does not make much difference, where the boundary is drawn.
Anyway, I am not in favor of Template:EN, as most taxa can be seen as endemics, if only the area is chosen large enough. However, a labelling as "endemic" of Asia, Neotropics, America, Russia, Africa, Europa, etc. would not really be informative. For me, the template nevertheless is rather more acceptable than the categories. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I'd never heard of the Kuma–Manych Depression boundary before! At least it sounds more interesting than the Brexit Depression boundary. True on the last point; this species can be said to be endemic to the earth-moon system . . . :-) MPF (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Kuma–Manych Depression boundary actually is the reason that Mont Blanc is known by many people as the highest mountain of Europe. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was just ignorance of Elbrus being higher! MPF (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: I like maps very much and I compiled some of them, e.g. the one in Schwartzia (Marcgraviaceae) or File:Lilium map.png, but it is a time consuming work, if there does not exist any up-to-date original that can be used. Using maps can be recommended. However, if this should be the only way allowed to represent distributions, we most likely will have information on distribution area only for a very small proportion of taxa. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's true! I've made a few too, and agree it is fairly time-consuming. - MPF (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to throw categories like this into the mix. They are dead ends in the sense that they are no longer linked to taxon pages. Should they now be subject to a mass delete? By the way the {{NZOR}} link is now dead. Andyboorman (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The NZOR url just needs the term "demo" removed from it, it is very much still alive (see NZOR). I can't fix it because the template has been protected! Stegana (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, mass delete. Must admit I thought hey'd all been got rid of a while back! - MPF (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just want to say that I am monitoring this issue (and all the others) but I'm currently out of town visiting a bunch of hospitals. No worries though: while I'm very much endemic as a specimen, at least I'm not epidemic… In a few days I'll be back in the data dungeon, and will try to contribute with my 5 cents worth of input. Already at this point I can say that my main view is that we probaly would be better off with the {{Endemic}} template deleted altogether, but that we should use a {{Cosmopolitan distribution}} template instead, when applicable. –All the best to all of you, and see you in a while, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
An anonymous user in 2012 created a the Template:Endemic Species which she/he attached to a number of pages without distribution information all pretty useless IMO. I am deleting the template off some of the taxon pages. It also has a sub-category as well. Have a look before I delete the whole lot! Andyboorman (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I use category:Cosmopolitan Taxa to list naturally occurring cosmopolitan species. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to define exactly what you mean by "cosmopolitan", as it is a vague concept, and "effectively global" is still too vague. Better just not to bother, as it isn't useful anyway. Stegana (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Who can tell me who is Stegana. He is changing my edditings. PeterR (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, who @Stegana: is. I agree with him/her, that Species should be described binomial (without Subgenus). But I do not agree, that Subgenus pages should be changed from e.g. Stegana (Steganina) (Subgenus) to Steganina (Subgenus). Why? Because there is a problem then with Stegana (Stegana) (Subgenus). You can't change it to Stegana (Genus? Subgenus?). --Murma174 (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a standard case of disambiguation, in this case between genus and subgenus. There are several options. The one I use is [[Stegana (Stegana)|Stegana]], but an alternative is [[Stegana (Subgenus)|Stegana]] ... Stegana (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Murma174 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you described binomial it don't fix with the original authors bulletin and the example in the museum. So if you add categories author taxa and museum you have add them with subgenus. In the official Museum species bulletin it is always with subgenus. If you don't know who is Stegana I stop with my contributions for this genus and others with subgenera. PeterR (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty obvious who Stegana is in reality, but maybe I am wrong! A brief look at the edits, their target, timing and style is indicative - the duck test seems to apply. Hopefully I am wrong! Andyboorman (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: @Murma174: I have altered the ref templates to conform with the agreed formats. You may wish to check my work. Andyboorman (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-posted from Administrators Noticeboard If this is a sockpuppet of User:Stho002, then I actually say to let sleeping dogs lie. He added a lot to Wikispecies but was just a hothead and petty. If this new account starts adding New Zealand-related categories and starts name-calling, then we can block him. If not, let it be. It's embarrassing and childish that he can't just admit that he keeps on coming back to Wikispecies serially but we should reap the benefits of his knowledge and hard work if he wants to play nice. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: I would agree with you, but he has already behaved in a petty way by altering @PeterR:'s reference templates more or less just to follow his chosen format rather than our consensus. He also has tended to follow Peter R interfering with his work and stressing him. In addition, he has opened an account on En Wikipedia and they have a far stronger policy on sockpuppetry - will you inform them of our suspicions? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: Done. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: You know if Sthoner come back I stop. If you look to Sthoner his work it is not so good as some people thinks. PeterR (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only English

Why Wikispecies English only ?Mehk63 (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehk63: We have not done a good job. We are supposed to be multi-lingual, like Commons or Wikidata. We have some translated pages but not enough. Do you want to help us? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Yes, I want to help.Mehk63 Message 16:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mehk63: Excellent. At Wikilivres, we have an internationalization page and I wanted to reproduce that here. Let me get back to you tomorrow on the specifics. I'm excited about this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mehk63: The page is here wikilivres:Wikilivres:Localization. I need to figure out how to get that functionality here--it's a goal of mine for this site. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mehk63: Sorry if that was confusing. The page has a few chosen languages and translates short messages into all of them so that when users set their own preferences at Special:Preferences, then the pages can be in those languages. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template languages

It seems like all of the different non-English language versions of the {{Welcome}} template has a small error, namely that the code string [[Category:Welcome templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] isn't placed within <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. As a result all of the pages where the templates are used are automatically placed in Category:Welcome templates, which is of course wrong. For instance, presently Llywelyn2000's talk page is a member of the "Welcome templates" category, which seems odd since that category really should only contain the welcome templates themselves – but not the pages where they are used.

The trouble is that these templates cannot be updated manually, at least not to 100%. They are all translations of the page Template:Welcome and – at least as far as I know – can only be updated using the translation tool, for instance here for the Cymraeg version (used on Llywelyn2000's talk page). The translation tool doesn't show any code relating to categories, which of course makes it difficult to edit them... This is true for {{Welcome/cy}} as well as all the other non-English versions.

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to fix this issue? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps this edit may help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Sadly no. First of all, the different languages versions (listed in Category:Welcome templates) of the "main" Welcome template are specific, individual documents, and all of them do include the "[[Category:Welcome templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]" code string. This is apparent when looking at some of the diffs, for instance this one. The trouble is that the "Edit" links (including the ones on the diff pages) only leads to the translations tool rather than to a standard editing page, and all code strings regarding categories are excluded from the translation tool. As far as I understand we need a way to circumvent the translation tool, in order to be able to access the full wiki code for each of the welcome templates.
Secondly, while your edit was a good idea, the <translate> and </translate> tags needs to be "noincluded" or they will be visible onscreen. The translation tags does not show up on the Welcome template page itself, but they will be rendered on the pages that utilise the template; see User:Tommy Kronkvist/Welcome for an example. Before your edit they did not show up onscreen. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Spelling of a genus

@Franz Xaver: @MPF: anybody! What is the correct/accepted spelling and citation of this genus in Icacinaceae; Ryticaryum Becc. Malesia 1: 120. (1877), Rhyticaryum Becc. Malesia 1: 256. (1878), Ryticarum "Becc."ex Boerl. Handl. Fl. Ned. Ind. (Boerlage) 1(1): 215, sphalm. (1890) or Rhytidocaryum K.Schum. & Lauterb. Fl. Schutzgeb. Südsee [Schumann & Lauterbach] 415 (1900). Tropicos and IPNI are not much help. All citations above from IPNI. WS has the red link Rhyticaryum, but Tropicos has the type Ryticaryum olearaceum Becc. (1877). The other two produce almost no results on Scholar. Thoughts anyone. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases, the protologues and the code, including appendices, have to be consulted. Secondary sources, as IPNI and Tropicos, alone are only sufficient, when there are no contradictions. That's the reason, why I always link to the respective pages in BHL etc, if possible. So, the original spelling or questions of validity of publication or ... can easily be checked. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Original spelling by Beccari. (2) "Correction" by the same author months later. (3) Obvious error by Boerlage. (4) Linguistic improvement by K.Schum. & Lauterb.
Art. 60.1 rules that "The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors ..." In my opinion, even the slight correction by Beccari himself goes beyond the changes allowed by the code. For example, see Rhytidophyllum in the appendix IIIA of the previous Vienna code: Conservation was necessary to change the original spelling Rytidophyllum into Rhytidophyllum. Flora Malesiana adopted the "corrected" spelling. This seems to be a good starting point to formulate a proposal for conservation and send this to the Committee for Vascular Plants. If not, Ryticaryum is the correct spelling so far. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also Index Nominum Genericorum database. Probably, it is nevertheless better to follow Flora Malesiana and to consider a proposal to the Committee. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! I was not even half way down the chain! My Latin, Italian and German is rudimentary to say the least. I guess that Beccari meant "a nut like a drinking horn" and realised that his original Ryticaryum was nonsense. Rhyticaryum is used by Byng and others cited on the Icacinaceae taxon page. So if I follow your logic Ryticaryum has precedence under Art. 60.1 until a proposal is agreed by the Committee to conserve Rhyticaryum on the grounds that is the most commonly used orthographic variant, is what Beccari desired and is slightly more correct linguistically. So to get this right. If I wanted to complete the page in the near future, I would have to use Ryticaryum perhaps with a synopsis of this discussion explaining why this variant and not the others found in literature and include a link to Index Nom. Gen. etc.. I assume that the orthographic variants are not formal homonyms and really do not have weight beyond their usages. Thanks interesting stuff it is great to more or less end the day having learnt. Andyboorman (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning etymology: Greek rhytís (gen. rhytídos) = wrinkle. It is quite obvious, that Beccari wanted to refer to the fact that the surface of the endocarp ("nut") is not smooth (reticulato-rugoso-alveolatum). In the Italian part of the genus protologue he gives much room to the fruit and to its rugose surface after desiccation of the thin "flesh" (carne), remodelling the surface of the endocarp. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have learnt again. Is that Greek? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My addition of "Greek" came too late. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt at Localization

Wikispecies:Localization I have modeled this after wikilivres:Wikilivres:Localization (and included attribution in the edit summary as well as posting to the Pump there). I am testing it on Diceros bicornis. Please tell me any quirks you see or problems with the notion as far as you can tell. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; only problem I see is that 'protonym' (the official zoological term) has been changed to 'Original combination'; I'd suggest we stick with 'protonym' (and presumably the same in all languages, except capitalised Protonym in German, and whatever it is transliterated into Arabic, Cyrillic, etc., scripts). Similarly 'basionym' for botany. - MPF (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: Either text can be localized. Whatever is in an article will appear: if the text says {{int:Protonym}} or if it says {{int:Original combination}} or {{int:Original name}}, etc. I want to have as little text that is not localized as possible. I agree about the capitalization: it drives me up the wall but I'm not sure if I can fix it. Better to have some non-standard caps in multiple languages than to have unreadable text for many of our users. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks! I just tried changing to lower case ({{int:protonym}}) on the Black Rhino page, but it still capitalises it - MPF (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also tried adding {{int:}} formatting to country names (in the photo captions), but it didn't work - I'm thinking this would be worth doing if possible - MPF (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You will not be able to accomplish that. Any letter following colons, square or bow brackets without intervening spaces is invariably capitalized. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: That is because the country names haven't been defined at WS:LOCAL yet. Once they are, then they should appear! —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #2—2016

m:User:Elitre (WMF), 17:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking User:Stho002

Per conversation Anyone who has been around here for a while knows User:Stho002, who has made himself known as the New Zealand biologist Stephen E. Thorpe. He was formerly very active on the site but has not been for awhile and furthermore has been blocked. There is extensive discussion about this in the archives and even a few threads that are recent enough to still be on the Pump. I have communicated with him directly via email and told him that we would be happy to have his expertise and hard work under the following conditions:

  • No use of sockpuppets, alternate accounts, etc. and a declaration of all of the ones he has had.
  • A one-revert per 24-hours restriction.
  • A commitment to basic etiquette: No harassing users, using foul language, and name-calling.
  • A good faith effort to help us craft more guidelines and central discussion about disputes. Once some conflict about formatting (such as including direct links to PDFs in reference templates) comes up, then take that to WS:RfC.

As I explained to him, these are in no way unreasonable requests and they are exactly what would be expected of anyone else on any WMF project. He expressed concern about unjustified attacks on him and his work on the site. I assured him that I would do my best to intervene and arbitrate as I could (around my real-life responsibilities). I'm not making this my personal case--any admin can be trusted with this but he and I have been in discussion, so it's possible that he may ask me to give my two cents.

He responded that he was "happy not to touch anyone else's edits without first discussing it with them on their talk page, and then on the VP if we can't agree (giving 24 hrs for reply, then if no reply I take that as a go ahead). BUT, the same goes for my edits, i.e. nobody touches these without discussion with me and then if necessary on VP (if I don't reply within 24 hrs then they can go ahead)." He also indicated that all his sockpuppets/alternate accounts had been found and blocked.

I hope that he can be welcomed back and can be a productive member of the site. He's helped produce a lot of high-quality content. I know that there has been a lot of back-and-forth with him in the past but I hope that we can move onwards and upwards. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Do I understand correctly? You already have unblocked him now? Per discussion with whom? It seems that this unblock is based only on an exchange of emails with Sto002, and with nobody else? When you communicated that "we would be happy to ...", this seems to have been premature, in my opinion, considering the long history of conflicts. Without having disscussed this matter with other members of the community or on VP, you can speak only for yourself and not for the community ("we"). I hope the deal between you and Sto002 will work out properly. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: And YOU were alleging ME acting against community consensus? Ridiculous! --Murma174 (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"BUT, the same goes for my edits, i.e. nobody touches these without discussion with me and then if necessary on VP (if I don't reply within 24 hrs then they can go ahead)." I find this utterly unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is to end the relation with Koavf. What he is doing now is out of order. Because Stohner is back now I end my contributions. After 9 years hard working this is for me the end. PeterR (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver:, @Murma174:, @Pigsonthewing:, @PeterR: I am definitely sorry to see that so many of my peers have been upset by my decision. If any other admin sees Stho002 doing something inappropriate and blocks him, I will of course respect that. If the community thinks that what I have done is wrong, I accept having my admin tools taken away. I just seriously wanted to do what was best for the community and I'm sorry that it played out this way. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you have done is very very wrong. What you have done is not the best for the community. The best for the community was him block. You can't walk away without block Stohner again. PeterR (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: I apologize and I don't want you to leave the project. I honestly want as many knowledgeable and hard-working editors as possible. I hope that you can stay and I hope that he can edit without problems like before--he had been here for a very long time prior to being blocked and has been very productive. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a view on the block (not having been involved at the time, and not having studied the case). But I don't see how you come to agree to an apparent restriction on everyone else's edits, doubly so one that gives the returning user a privilege not afforded to any other editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its a fait accompli. He would have persisted with socks ad infinitum. Andy has a couple of good points. The 24 hour "rule" is impracticable in the real world. The conditions are unfair for those who do not edit every day. Discussion should be by email with the view/read option used. Will consensus really rule? Will good faith rule? What do I, a f**cking idiot, know anyway? Andyboorman (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing:I do not understand your comment "one that gives the returning user a privilege not afforded to any other editor". I see no such privilege. It cuts both ways equally. I have agreed to not modify or correct errors in anyone else's edits without first alerting them to the issue on their talk page and discussing it with them, and then if still necessary at the VP. A time restriction is necessary to prevent deliberate no response thwarting the issue (and preventing the correction of errors, etc.) This is intended by me as a courtesy/compromise, but I expect the same courtesy/compromise in return (compromise and cooperation being a two way street). We can make it 48 hrs if you like, but remember that applies equally to all. So where's the problem? Stho002 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A condition of probation is never applied indiscriminately to all members of a community. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are making false assumptions, Franz! It isn't a condition of probation! It wasn't even part of the agreement that User:Koavf suggested to me. I came up with it as a courtesy and User:Koavf agreed that it is a good idea (because it is a good idea!) It is simply a way to prevent knee-jerk reactionary edits from anyone, and to try to make sure that sensibly considered decisions are made ... Stho002 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Stho002: That you do not understand my concern may be a symptom of the problem alleged by others: you do not understand (or do not accept) the way that this project works. You have been blocked for some time, because your behaviour did not conform to the standards expected of us all. You have now been allowed to return to editing, apparently having given assurances that your behaviour will improve. This entails additional restrictions on how you edit - "probation", in other words - in order that the potential for you to do harm (or to make more work for other volunteers) is limited, and in order that you have a clear and fair idea of what is expected of you. It is not, however, for you to place conditions (such as the one I quoted above) on other editors, and no-one is bound by such conditions. No one has to ask you first before amending one of your edits, and if you do not accept that, then you should accept that your time as a contributor here must end. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: .Only you have to do is block Stohner again. If you don't we have to block you too. PeterR (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: What was I saying about unjustified threats/attacks? And from a sysop too! Red lights should be flashing at this point ... Stho002 (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: And now this! Is this conduct suitable for a sysop? Stho002 (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The unblocking of Stho002 was a major violation of every acceptable rule on the part of @Koavf:. I expect him to immediately resign his sysop rights. What he has done is unheard of in all wiki's history. He committed no less than a crime against WS! That's how I see it! Mariusm (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a breather

@PeterR:, @Franz Xaver:, @Mariusm: I understand that what I did is causing controversy. I have received criticism here and I don't think it's unjustified. I have also received support off-wiki. I would simply like to suggest a few things:

  • Criticism of Stho002 should be based on his actions, not what you think his actions are going to be. In the past, he has had several completely unacceptable edits and used sockpuppets. According to what he has said above, he recognizes this and wants to move onwards and upwards. Can anyone point to edits that he has made since unblocking which are inappropriate?
  • Whenever there is someone who is a "rogue editor" or a "think-for-himself outsider"--however you want to frame it--you have to make a choice: do you want him outside the tent pissing in or inside the tent pissing out? That is to say, Stho002 had some problematic behavior and was blocked. He continued being problematic by creating sockpuppets intermittently. Do we really want to go through this back-and-forth? If he was a pure vandal, then yes--we should definitely put a stop to it immediately. The fact is, he's not. He has expertise and a lot of dedication to the project even if he has had conflicts and even if he has caused some of them (which is definitely true). I sincerely don't want to lose him and I also don't want to lose other users like PeterR who also provide a lot of good to this community. Maybe I am too naive but I think that we can really work together to make a taxonomic directory here and just be civil adults from this point forward.
  • Stephen has been concerned about unjustified attacks on him. To be honest, I thought that his concerns were overblown but seeing how some of this has played out makes me reconsider. Edits like this are as childish and pointless as any that I've seen anyone make here.
  • I suggest that everyone take a short break to reassess. That includes myself.
  • I understand that the crux of why others are upset is that they feel the will of the community was ignored. I made some effort to gauge community interest before unblocking but maybe not enough. Either way, when it comes to my fitness as an admin here, I am 100% willing to accept the will of the community: if you think that what I've done is so out of line that I should not be an admin, I will not dispute any vote on the matter. I don't want it to come to that but I respect why others feel that way. I just ask that anyone give Stho002 a few days back here to see how his edits and interactions are and then if you still feel the same way, I am willing to accept being desysopped.
  • Stho002's edits are under higher scrutiny than anyone else's and for good reason. I think he realizes that there may be some users out to get him (I'm still not convinced but this may be true), there are some who maybe still hold a grudge, and there are others such as myself who were never really that deeply invested in problems in the past but want to move forward. I will not hesitate to block him if I see some of the crass, crude, and harassing behavior from before. So far, I haven't.

I really just want this to be a good educational resource that is useful for others. I really wish that we could all just work on that together. Some amount of disagreement is inevitable but I hope that this can all be something that we move past. If Stho002's edits become a problem in the future, I suggest blocking him in proportion to how soon the problems begin and just how bad they are--if he is a valued member of the community who has a bad day several months from now and acts out then just give him 28 hours to cool off. If he starts vandalizing userpages for others that he dislikes tomorrow, then block him again indefinitely. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you. Your talking bull shit about his contributions. I have update a lot of his contributions with subfamily and tribus after original bulletins. The author templates are a mist, etc. PeterR (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@PeterR: I have to admit this is a problem for me since I am not an entomologist and certainly not a specialist in lepidoptera such as yourself. Can you give me an example of what you mean by his templates being mistaken? Have you had problems with this since he's been back? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, but their are hundreds of templates to update from him. PeterR (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really must object to these accusations by PeterR, who is most certainly not any kind of "specialist" or "expert". Although I certainly haven't got to where I am by the usual road, I nevertheless sincerely doubt if PeterR can show a similar research profile or Wiki "CV" to stack up to mine, particularly in terms of research collaboration with other scientists. Normally I wouldn't attempt to justify myself by detailing such things, but in this case I think that the facts speak for themselves and show the assertions of PeterR to be nothing but mere fantasy ...Stho002 (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thats just the problem with Stohner. He don't except that others (not specialist or expert) can add new information. I add all new information after original bulletins or books in agreement with other members. He have to learn to do the same.PeterR (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See this example from a wrong athor template made by Stohner: Template:Moulet, 2010.
  1. No add the author name.
  2. No description from the text.
  3. No connection to the full article.
To see this, have I be a specialist or expert?
I update some author templates like this after our agreements:
Such as some knows I was an Integrity Engeneer. I'm now 70 years old.PeterR (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: The above example really doesn't require or deserve a response, but briefly: (1) it isn't an "athor [sic!] template", it is a reference template; (2) it wasn't "wrong", it was incomplete, as you can see from the page history, and it refers to an edit I made in 2013; (3) leaving some pages incomplete is inevitable when one tries to create pages en masse to save time overall, but the whole idea of community editing is that anyone can complete them, as PeterR has now done; and, most importantly (4) creating some incomplete pages isn't against any policies and certainly isn't grounds for a block! Stho002 (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Perhaps PeterR would like to comment on this recent page creation of his, which had no content at all and so is "wrong" by his own reasoning! Although I wouldn't call the page "wrong", it was however pointless ... Stho002 (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stho002: An interesting point that you refer to this page creation by PeterR. You waited exactly 24 minutes before you converted this incomplete page into a disambiguation page. May I remind you, that you, as has been reported by User:Koavf, would be "happy not to touch anyone else's edits without first discussing it with them on their talk page, and then on the VP if we can't agree (giving 24 hrs for reply, then if no reply I take that as a go ahead). ..." I can not find any discussion on Peters talk page, and 24 minutes certainly are not 24 hrs. OK, you are claiming in the edit summary, you edit would be "uncontroversial". You certainly will remember, that one of the controversial points had been, that you did give other user not enough time to finish their work. I suppose, that Peter just in this momemt was sorting the facts before he would have completed his work. Anyway, repeating a pattern which in the past had caused conflicts, certainly can not be claimed to be "uncontroversial". In short, as it seems, your edit shortly after Peter's creation of the page, already is a breach of your promise. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Dear Justin! Two comments to your long statement:

(1) You asked: ".. do you want him outside the tent pissing in or inside the tent pissing out?" It is unacceptable to me, that continuous sockpuppetry might be a suitable instrument to bring someone back into the game. Did you consider this strategy might at some point in the future find epigones?

(2) OK, I recognise your honourable self-criticism. In my opinion, it is too early to consider desysopping, neither by a vote nor by resignation from your side. In my understanding, your decision is questionable, as making single-handedly a fait accompli is not in the spirit of a community project, but it is probably within the authorisation you got from the community. I am convinced, it happened in good faith and you intended the best for WS. (Future will show, if this is successful.) Anyway, I expect that you take the responsibility and have a sharp eye on all actions following. Withdrawal is not a good option, after having caused a difficult situation. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my point of view to this whole thing. Personally I have no problem with Stho002 getting back to active editing, but feel that he needs to follow consensus in regards to format and praxis, just like the rest of us. As for Koavf unblocking him that is (imo) fine too, but perhaps it should have been vented here at the Pump and/or the Admins' Noticeboard a bit more first. That said, Wikimedia is not a democracy, and per the rules all of the administrators have the right to make such a decision themselves, also without prior communication. To conclude: discussing whether to block or unblock a user is in many cases a good thing, but not at all a prerequisite according to the policies. I still support Koavf remaining an administrator. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Er, there is just one flaw in your argument, but it is a doozy! The current formatting rules were decided not by true consensus, but mostly drafted after I had already been blocked out of the "consensus", and drafted in such a way as to systematically be the opposite of what my formatting practices were, even though, as the major contributor to WS content, my formatting practices are numerically the most abundant, which is a strong rational reason not to change them (because changing them involves a vast amount of utterly pointless work changing one perfectly fine format into another equivalent format)! A biased "consensus" is not a true consensus. Stho002 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a biased "consensus" never should be mistaken for a true consensus. However, I disagree with you on some points. First of all, we had quite a long Village Pump discussion (December 10 – December 29, 2015) prior to voting about the reference format. The discussion did only mention you on two occasions, both more or less unrelated to your preferences in regards to formatting. As for the draft, well… it was a draft, and got changed several times before voting commenced. As far as I can see no single user "systematically opposed" any other user in any part of the entire process – we all simply wanted to agree upon a good format practice that would suite as many editors as possible while still be an acceptable citation style from an academic point of view. Both the discussion and poll were of course open for all non-blocked users, and involved several of the most active ones: both admins and bureaucrats, as well as regular users. I bear no grudge against any user who has taken part in this whole issue, you included, and as usual any user is free to re-open any old discussion, regarding preferred reference format, or anything else. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Oh come on! You say "no single user "systematically opposed" any other user in any part of the entire process". Correct! The entire community (excluding those who were to scared of the sysop mob and keeping their heads down) systematically opposed all my preferences. That is in fact the only reason that they managed to all agree on anything! Besides, do you really think that this edit of yours was worth making? It is a doozy! What about all the other thousands of edits of mine over the last 8 years which use the "wrong type of horizontal line"? Are you going to "correct" all those, too? I lost any respect for you that I may have had previous to that edit (it might have been forgiveable as part of a more substantial edit, but doing just that and taking the time to write a summary for the edit was unbelievable! Stho002 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to believe that the "entire [Wikispecies] community" consisting of almost 2.8 million users systematically oppose anyone, nor do I believe that the majority of those users are scared of an in my opinion non-existing "sysop mob". Also, I have certainly not "joined the WS Nazi Mafia" as you suggest in your e-mail to me. As for the hyphen/en dash edit you refer to, yes it was a small one, but when I'm checking out a Wikispecies page anyway – why not make a correction, be it big or small? Wikispecies is supposed to be language independent, hence the use of international standards for text formatting should be preferred. The ISO- and Unicode standards (Version 8.0, chapter 6.2, p. 267) both advocate en dashes over hyphens when listing ranges of values. Taking the time to always include edit summaries is considered to be good practice, and something everyone should always do. Admittedly I sometimes neglect to add one, but for the vast majority of edits I always also include a summary. All of the above is facts, and doesn't really need to be discussed further. That said, it worries me that you consider following Wikimedia's praxis and policies to be something "unbelievable" to do, but then again I guess that's the main reason why this thread was created in the first place. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Koavf: Stho002 deleted my original message from the pump. See the diff here Isn't it proof enough to his returning to the old ways? Mariusm (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am astonished that Mariusm would want to exhibit once again his edit which Koavf has already stated is "as childish and pointless as any that I've seen anyone make here". I explicitly ("RV: Messing with my signature!") reverted it for the reason that Mariusm messed with my signature. You are welcome to repeat your message, if you must, I have no interest in that ... Stho002 (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I want to add a few remarks.

  • I'm sorry for the harsh earlier remark. I didn't really meant what I said. It was made in the heat of the moment. I know your intentions were good and I apologize.
  • I at least expect from you to put the matter to the community's vote, considering the past few years' history. It wasn't a regular block but a very special one.
  • Your edits don't involve taxonomy proper so you haven't experienced the stress which Stho002 causes many users here regarding formatting and rule-breaking.
  • I "know" Stho002 for 9 years now, and I "know" that he regularly breaks his promises.
  • The heart of the matter isn't that his edits are incorrect, but that his formatting is not the one accepted by the community. It is his unique non-standard formatting and he categorically refuses to compromise on this issue.

All the best, Mariusm (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Statement - below I asked Stho002 a question, to which I think he provided a reasonable answer. Hence, I have voted to unblock him. As he said for good or bad the world now considers Wikimedia the number 1 information source, a long way from World Book or Britanica of my childhood. He wishes to be involved in this. I believe he can make enormous contributions, despite the fact that he and I have come head to head over issues in the past. I am willing to leave the past in the past. I think his sock-puppetry was all acts of desperation, misguided but desperation nonetheless. The question I asked was very poignant and I am sure he did not like it, it had undertones that may have been lost on people not familiar with taxacom. However, he answered it and how one handles difficult questions I think is a test of character. Stho002 and I probably agree on over 90% of taxonomic issues, we are both very interested in the Zoological Code, however where we disagree we do so vehemently. I do not need to agree with everything someone says to work with them. I have stated in other conversations that this user would be an asset to Wikipedia, in conversations where unblocking him was not considered possible at that time. I think we should look at things on balance. Yes there have been issues in the past, but I think for this user we can try to get past this. I hope that Stho002 will try also. Cheers Faendalimas talk 00:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, this practical example brings some light into the problems addressed above. In one of his first edits after being unblocked, Stho002 created this new category. It is an innovation in our category system. In its last consequence, it would be the corner stone of a system of categories, that at least would affect all zoological taxon pages. (In botany, the term "original combination" is not used - "basionym" instead.) True, there are not much rules ore agreements concerning creation of categories on WS. However, it can be expected that far-reaching innovations, that potentially in the future will affect all of us, are discussed at VP before implementation, and that this new system is not established single-handedly. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"True, there are not much rules ore [sic!] agreements concerning creation of categories on WS" That is the crucial point! I created a new category. I'm perfectly entitled to do so. Nobody has yet come to me directly with any objections to this category, so I can hardly be accused of ignoring the community! In short, I have done nothing wrong, so why is Franz even mentioning this trivial and technical issue in the context of a discussion about my unblocking?? ... Stho002 (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the use of this category. To use the category author taxa and category museum you need the original combination see Ernophthora chrysura. PeterR (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have two discussion threads on this as follows. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be added to the topic of this thread: Category:Subsequent combination and Category:Nominal taxa by author. Obviousely, these are part of the same "innovative project". Discussing this also together with the other category, seems to be appropriate. They were created right after the start of this thread. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fait accompli

First thread topic: In the past, it was the habit of Stho002 to establish different innovations without discussing it with the community. This caused conflicts just from the beginning in 2008, shortly after he started to edit with a named account. As I understand - it was long before I came to WS - the conflicts concerning the [[New Zealand]] page as can be seen in Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 16 evolved along this line. Later followed a period that was more calm. Anyway, if one studies the VP archives, there are only a few ones, where there is no drama involving Stho002, mostly because of his single-handed innovations and - in older archives - the counter-actions by others or - in later archives - his attempts to enforces his innovations upon others. So, again Stho002 is starting this new period of activity with an innovation, not having made an attempt to discuss this first. In my opinion, this does not give much hope, that the pattern of past conflicts will change a lot in the future. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In my opinion, this does not give much hope, ..." So what? All you have actually said is that I have already made an edit which, although in itself breaks no policies, and cannot be used to justify the reversal of my unblocking, may nevertheless, in your opinion (whatever that is worth?) indicate that in the future I may cause significant problems, thus making the implication that I should therefore be reblocked now! Blocking is quick and easy, so if I do anything in future which does justify a block, please feel free to block me as a result, but all these contrived arguments why I should be blocked again now are just dispaying for all to see the true nature of the beasts involved Stho002 (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This your statement very well illustrates the core of the problem. Being not against any rules, does not automatically mean, that an edit did not have the potential to trigger controversies. Actually, I do not have much hope, that you will develep a good understanding of the thinking of other persons in order to ancipitate which of your edits potentially may cause problems. No, I am not entitled to block anyone. And if I were, I would not do it here because of the creation of this category. However, creating such a category very likely has far ranging consequences for the whole community, and doing so single-handedly without discussion is against the spirit of the deal between you and User:Koavf. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The category

Second thread topic: Does this type of category make sense at all? In my opinion, it does not. At present state, the pages categorised in Category:Original combination are supposed to be taxon pages. There may also be synonyms to be found at taxon pages, as e.g. in Holcaspis hispida or Catoptes binodis. As I see the essential problem: (1) Taxonomy deals with taxa, i.e. entities described and delimitated by a lot of different methods, morphological to molecular, based on taxonomic concepts/species concepts. (2) Nomenclature deals with names that refer to taxa as delimitated according to mentioned methods. One accepted taxon can only have one - in zoology - valid name or - in botany - correct name. Other existing names are synonyms. (Homonyms are another story.) So, using categories that address a nomenclatural question in order to categorise pages devoted to taxonomic entities, is blurring these both domains of concepts, i.e. taxonomy vs. nomenclature. We should avoid such kind of conceptual flaw. Anyway, put this question already before: Is wikispecies on taxa, i.e. producing taxon pages as e.g. Elvasia calophyllea or Calycopis johnsoni, or is it on names, as e.g. is put into effects by pages as Holcaspis hispidulus? This difference has a big impact on the way, how the stuff on WS has to be organised. And in my opinion, this should have been decided at the beginning of the project - maybe it already was decided in favour of presenting taxa. Anyway, a lot of the innovations of Stho002 only make sense, if WS should be changed on a name based architecture. This means, one page for one name, and names referring to one and the same taxon linked together in some way. Only in a solution aiming such a name based architecture, the new created category of concern makes sense. Anyway, a Category:Valid species, also created by Stho002, should also be addressed in this context. However, that's a terminological rubbish, again blurring both mentioned concepts. If you have a look into the zoological code, e.g. in Art. 23, it gets much clearer: "The valid name of a taxon is the oldest available name applied to it ..." Similarly in the lower half of the glossary: "valid, a. (validity, n.) Of an available name or a nomenclatural act: one that is acceptable under the provisions of the Code and, in the case of a name, which is the correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgment." Also here, there is a clear distinction of the concepts of taxonomy and nomenclature. A taxon cannot be valid or invalid. It is based on "an author's taxonomic judgment", i.e. it may be accepted by the author of a faunistic/floristic treatment, revision, checklist, or not. Validity is only on names, i.e. once delimitated, a taxon has exactly one valid/correct name and the rest falls into synoymy. I hope, we will be able to bring some concepts into this kind of stuff, before some more "innovations" are established. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add: When I speak of "taxa", in general and in the text above, I mean "taxonomic taxa" in the sense of the zoological code (see glossary). "Nominal taxa" as defined in ICZN, seems to be a concept peculiar to zoology, and was new to me, being a botanist. Yes, of course, every author, when establishing a new name, has a taxon in mind, which in retrospect can be expressed by the term "nominal taxon", contrary to a "taxonomic taxon", which may include the nomenclatural types of several "nominal taxa". As I would express this, a "nominal taxon" is something, that was thought to be a taxon by its author, but later may emerge to be something included in the wider concept of a "taxonomic taxon", as understood by other, more recent authors. Anyway, in botany concepts and terminology are different. Some other points to be discussed. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: I doubt if any of that was understood by anyone here! So, you appear to be blaming me for both the global problem of disentangling nomenclature and taxonomy, and the local problem that WS was not designed in such a way that handles the former problem very well! My aim is to experiment on a small scale to see what can be done. You say "One accepted taxon can only have one - in zoology - valid name or - in botany - correct name. Other existing names are synonyms." This is incorrect! There is no such thing as "the valid name" of a taxon (unless there is only one name in the running). There is only one valid name for a taxon relative to a given set of synonyms, and synonymy is typically subjective, so there may be several alternative names for a given taxon, depending on whose synonymy one chooses to follow. WS has no way of prescribing how a "preferred name" for a taxon is to be chosen. Stho002 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not demean yourself by implying that contributors are too unintelligent and inexperienced to understand the points made by Franz and by implication yourself. Andyboorman (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stho002: No, I am not blaming you for disentangling nomenclature and taxonomy, but in the contrary for mixing up both. However, I admit, there may be some misunderstanding coming from different concepts and terminology between zoology and botany. Probably, when you hear the word taxon, you are focussing primarily on "nominal taxa". However, in botany this concept of "nominal taxa" is never used, When I am speaking about "taxa", this is about "taxonomic taxa". Classification of organisms into (taxonomic) taxa, in botanical thinking, is something that happens outside the sphere of nomenclature, has nothing to do with it, not at all. Once the boundaries of a species are defined, by morphological etc. methods, the set of "nominal taxa" (synonyms) included is defined as well, and so, there is only one correct/valid name. Read Art. 11 of the botanical code: "Each family or taxon of lower rank with a particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name ..." That's how I understand it: The circumscription of a taxon is given, before the matter enters the field of nomenclature. So I may reformulate: One accepted taxon with a given circumscription can only have one - in zoology - valid name or - in botany - correct name. Of course, I agree that WS is not the place to define the circumscription of (taxonomic) taxa. That's where we have to follow the most reliable published source.
You say, you "experiment on a small scale to see what can be done". I remember, that you in the time before your "break" at several occasions heavily had criticised other editors for "experimenting on life pages". It's my impression, that most of your earlier experimentings maybe have started at small, have grown bigger and bigger, until in such way something has developed, which in your opinion should be standard for the rest of the community, never having attempted to discuss this with other members of the community.
Anyway, I would like to read some arguments from you, why you think having a Category:Original combination would be a good idea, especially when you categorise taxa in this category.
Moreover, finally this would be a category with many thousand of entries. I doubt the usefullness of such a category anyways. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to discuss with you and/or anyone else here technical issues like these, but discuss directly with me please, not under a VP thread heading "Unblocking User:Stho002", which has no relevance to the issues. You say "No, I am not blaming you for disentangling nomenclature and taxonomy, but in the contrary for mixing up both". You misunderstand what I wrote! I wrote "you appear to be blaming me for both the global problem of disentangling nomenclature and taxonomy, and ..." The "global problem of disentangling nomenclature and taxonomy" is precisely that it is inextricably mixed up, and you appear to be blaming me for the mix up! You say "...follow the most reliable published source", but that assumes that there exists a unique most reliable source! I very much doubt that this could be established beyond mere subjective evaluation of reliability ... certainly not in zoology! Stho002 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, you are right, having this under the header "Unblocking User:Stho002" is not correct. My intention, when I started this, was to have a new thread with two sub-threads. Now, I have changed. OK, concerning disentangling and so on, you may have a point. (My English is not perfect.) However, as it seems, the problem of being "inextricably mixed up" is stronger in zoology, as a consequence of this concept of "nominal taxa". Both, taxonomy and nomenclature, are considerably better separated in botanical thinking. In my botanical understanding "nominal taxa" actually are not taxa, but they are just names or groups of names linked together by their nomenclatural type. Of course, you cannot be blamed for following zoological practice. Anyway, when you are dissolving "taxonomic taxa" into separate pages for "nominal taxa", this may perfectly make sense in the context of zoological nomenclature, however this would not be acceptable for botany. WS certainly is not entitled to introduce zoological concepts into botany. (Nevertheless a lot of this has happened already.) And also, as far as it concerns zoology, the way, how the stuff should be organised, must not be discussed bilaterally, but belongs to the VP. Finally, I want to stress, that by Wikidata WS is linked to all Wikipedia. And it is quite obvious, that the entities dealt with in Wikipedia articles are "taxonomic taxa" as defined by the zoological code, not nominal taxa. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver:Let us try to get this clarified: Taxa are hypothetical concepts. Nominal taxa are names for taxa. A single taxon can have more than one name (synonymy). Alternative taxa (concepts) may be in competition with each other as good descriptions of nature. The details depend on whether we are talking species or higher taxa. Although WS may be said to be mostly concerned about taxa, one can only refer to taxa by way of names (nominal taxa). As soon as you start referring to taxa using names, the issues become complex (perhaps particularly so in zoology, but probably also to some extent in botany). I am trying to find a good way of balancing precision with simplicity. Most editors here are just adding names from publications and/or databases, and have no idea of the taxa except by name. Therefore WS is effectively more of a name based database. At any rate, current activity on WS really isn't producing much of any value/use. We need to improve WS with careful consideration of the issues, but this is currently being thwarted by the lowest common denominator. In zoology, there are no authoritative comprehensive secondary sources for most groups, so one has to try to build something sensible from the scattered primary literature. This literature (and the few secondary sources) is/are sometimes error ridden and or mutually (or even internally) contradictory! So, what to do? ... Stho002 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stho002: I agree this thread does not belong here, but here it is and I must make a comment or two. Please do not disparage/denigrate the community of red linkers (lowest denominators), as without their data/taxon pages your plans, whatever they are, become irrelevant. If you want to improve WS by careful consideration of the issues you need to take the foot soldiers with you. Remember, they "twart" you not necessarily because they do not understand. Presenting them with a fait accompli expecting them to turn over wait for you to tickle their tummies is not an option. Open up a VP thread before the 14th? Andyboorman (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd additionally point out that – as with basionym in botany – there is an internationally agreed zoological term, protonym. Species is supposed to be language-independent, and we should be using the internationally agreed zoological term. - MPF (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term "original combination" is perfectly transparent and universally understood. I have rarely seen the term "protonym" used in zoology, and it appears, from what I can tell, see here for example, to at least sometimes (possibly mostly) have quite a different meaning altogether from that indicated by MPF, and is therefore a potential source of significant confusion. But anyway, this is a minor technical point and is therefore way out of place in a thread about my unblocking! ... Stho002 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That site link is a botanical site, and therefore irrelevant to zoological usage ;-) MPF (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on the unblocking of User:Stho002

Since User:Koavf unblocked Stho002 without asking permission from anyone here and since he made a "contract" with him without consulting anyone else in this community; since Stho002 is back acting in his old usual ways which are disruptive to WS as a whole, I'm taking the liberty of polling the community's consensus on his return back on the basis of the terms signed between him and Koavf.

I agree to unblock Stho002 with the terms specified by Koavf

  1. Stho002 (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tommy Kronkvist (talkcontribsblock logall projects) 13:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Faendalimas talk 23:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC) see discussion on comments below.[reply]
  5. Justin (koavf)TCM 19:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Obviously.[reply]

I'm opposed to Stho002's unblocking

  1. Mariusm (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Murma174 (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PeterR (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Orchi (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Completely and absolutely. Circeus (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As long as he does not change his attitude concerning community consensus. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As long as he doesn't very clearly state that he will comply with WS rules and conventions, including attitude and behavior towards other WS users. But if he does, I will again change my mind and happily support him. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. A collegiate behaviour and a fair attitude to consensus are required. If this is evidenced then I will gladly change. Andyboorman (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could lead by example, Andy! Stho002 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC) see discussion on comments below.[reply]
  2. Thiotrix (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC) , but strictly against privileges for any user (e.g. no-one allowed to change edits unless he gets "permission" ), because this will lame a wiki.[reply]

The poll is due to close on July the 14th. Thanks for your cooperation Mariusm (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • @Koavf: Mariusm says "since Stho002 is back acting in his old usual ways which are disruptive to WS as a whole", which is an unsupported lie, if anyone is being disruptive to WS, it is Mariusm! Stho002 (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the statements above I'm afraid, this poll will lead to nothing. --Murma174 (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still considering, how to vote. In my understanding, User:Koavf was not required to ask for permission. Anyway it was unwise, to unblock Stho002 without discussion in advance. Anyway, as he made his decision, I tend to assume good faith and give it a chance. However, probably it would be a good idea to make a new deal. Nevertheless, assuming good faith maybe will turn out to be insufficient. In some threads above, I already have pointed to some issues. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver:: I presume you are acquainted with the bible saying: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" Have you any doubt that we'll be facing exactly the same situation which we so desperately tried to avoid a year ago? Just look at the language, the attitude, the non-standard formatting, the refusal to comply to our rules, the endless and tiring rhetoric, the waste of time in fighting and contradicting his actions. But to quote the poet: "Hope springs eternal in the human breast ..." Mariusm (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: You ask, if I have doubt? I am not omniscient, especially as far as concerns the future, and sometimes miracles happen. Anyway, "assume good faith" is one of the basal rules. I am waiting for further develpments. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: Fair enough, but what are we supposed to do about his formatting, his rudimentary categories? According to his agreement with Koavf we are not allowed to correct his non-standard editing before discussing it with him and before getting his "permission". This will involve an interminable discussion, resulting eventually with an impasse. Are you comfortable with this too? Mariusm (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning non-standard formatting of reference templates, Stho002 himself has shown us the path to follow. He used the wording "Uncontroversial ..." in some edit summaries, e.g. [3]. As far as there exist common standard formats, agreed by the community and confirmed by a regular vote, this is binding for everyone, having participated in the vote or not. So, such edits to implement this standards certainly also are to be rated as "uncontroversial". However, in cases where there may exist some standards, but not based on a vote, it will be better to discuss the matter at VP before action. As soon as there exists a community agreement (including vote), implementation is possibly also there. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Stho002 can also try to find consensus for a change of the present standards. The place for this would be at VP, and a vote probably will be necessary. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what would you make of the <<Author, year>> in the name section linking to the citation instead of to the (standard) author's page? This is what Stho002 links in all his edits. Mariusm (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, concerning this point, there we only have an informal consensus, that has worked until now. We will need to come to something formal, in my opinion. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: We can't vote every time about the same object. If we make an agreement about References it means indeed that everybody have to follow this agreement. It can't be that a week later we have to vote for an other reference proposal. PeterR (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, once decided, no further votes will be necessary for all the same cases. Then it's going to implementation. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also need some time to reflect. My main concern at the moment is the current refusal to consider consensus and the creation of an important category without discussion. User:Koavf is within his rights. WS may not be a democracy, but the good feelings of the many are important in a community. Andyboorman (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not voted yet, but I have a question for @Stho002:. In recent times on Taxacom etc you have declared Wikispecies completely unreliable and other things. You basically demonstrate you have no faith in it and make that point very clear. Why do you wish to edit here again considering what you have publicly said about the place? I assume you can edit here email me if you have to you know my email. Cheers Faendalimas talk 23:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: I wish to edit here because I believe that WS has good potential, it is just that this potential is currently being thwarted by a somewhat toxic community making bad decisions. Given that future generations probably will (rightly or wrongly) look to Wikimedia sites for information, I feel morally obliged to do what I can to help give them access to good information, and not let a small group of selfish users ruin it for future generations ... Stho002 (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thank you. Cheers Faendalimas talk 23:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: Not "fair" at all in my opinion. Calling his site-mates, with whom he has to cooperate "toxic community" and "selfish users" is a very obvious evidence to his presumptuous prerogative. All the best, Mariusm (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: My "fair" was referring to his actual answer, not his embellishment. I have known Stho002 for some time and am used to ignoring his embellishment. I am not going to ask people to ignore all of his past transgressions but to see the bigger picture. Stho002 you do need to demonstrate you can be part of a community. (also fixed indents here) Cheers Faendalimas talk 08:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: my dear sir, "toxic community making bad decisions" isn't an "embellishment" as you say, nor a flowery way of speech. The guy does't trust us in the least bit and doesn't even remotely think to cooperate with us. He waits for the heat around him to cool down before resuming with his old familiar ways. Mariusm (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should remind us all that this is a Wiki and a founding principle is "welcoming and collegiate". I am sure all of us would welcome back Stho002, if he was collegiate. Ignoring past behaviour, his comments about our somewhat toxic community, his recent disgust with our consensus and refusal to discuss/justify potentially important changes is not setting a good precedent. I would advise we keep to the three top layers of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Given that this is not an individual's or a sub-group's project. Still considering. Andyboorman (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I believe very much in giving Stho002 a second chance. I hope he will avoid conflicts, and be a constructive member. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is the collegiate/consensus caveat that still concerns me. Anyway I am off for a few days. Andyboorman (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For some time, I have hoped that Stho002 would return to Wikispecies, prepared to work and cooperate with the WS community, and first I voted in his favour. His answers to Mariusm questions, made me think twice, and I changed my vote to neutral. I hope that during the next days, Sth002 will Sth002 indicate a higher degree of cooperation with the rest of the community, before the poll ends. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: what do you think about Stho002 return-terms agreed between himself and Koavf according to which no-one can change Stho002's edits unless his "permission" is granted following a discussion at his talk page or at VP. This term is a very privileged one, which no other user here enjoys. It seems that Koavf was so eager getting S. back that he was ready to agree on almost anything presented to him. Mariusm (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely respect that the community will make decisions together and that no one should get an absolute veto. To be an admin on this or any other project requires some amount of discretion on my part and a liberty to make decisions--if every decision I made were up to vote beforehand, we would only need one admin who was a bot that just tallied up votes and performed tasks automatically. I would like to suggest to the voters who are in favor of re-blocking: under what conditions would you allow Stho002 back to the site? Let's propose something substantial and usable so that if the community decides on re-blocking (which I think is unproductive but I would respect) that there is something he can do to become a trusted member of the community again. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Please note that this isn't a vote for re-blocking! It is simply a vote set to determine whether or not the community agrees with the terms of your agreement with me which resulted in my unblocking by you. If they don't agree, there are still several options: (1) ignore the result of the vote; (2) renegotiate the terms of the agreement; or (3) re-block me. Stho002 (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the most important condition for him, but also for all other members of the WS community, is to accept the outcome of decision finding processes within the community. Of course, it is not possible that always all members share the same view. So, if a vote or poll is agreed on and this vote results in a decision of the community, this has to be binding for everyone, i.e. also for Stho002. Until now, Stho002 continuously has polemicised that community consensus were biased against his better rational reasons, and so he could not accept. Moreover, some paragraphs above, he gave an answer to a question form Faendalimas, which I interpret as a clear declaration of intent, that his main interest for return to WS, is opposition to the "somewhat toxic community making bad decisions" in order not to "let a small group of selfish users ruin it". If he does not change his mind, this attitude will trigger more of the same endless conflicts, and this at the end will ruin the whole project of WS. Maybe, he still is thinking, that sometimes he could get rid of all the "contrarians" - see e.g. here. Anyway, this cannot be the basis to welcome his return. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PEarley (WMF): @Koavf: If the present "mob rule" is allowed to persist here on WS (by which I mean many users too afraid to take part in decision making, and those few users who do make decisions make them with shared selfish agendas and with disrespect to rationality), then I can only suggest that WS is taken down. Future generations would be much better off with no information than they would be with information controlled by the likes of Mariusm and some others here, who are not open to rational discussion. I will respect any community decision that isn't obviously tainted by bias. We should be deciding what is best for WS, not what personally appeals to each of us individually. Franz Xaver's comments above are incorrect. My main interest for return to WS is to contribute solid information for future generations. My main interest is not opposition. I just want to get on with contributing useful information, and not waste my time having to defend myself against attacks every five minutes! The huge irony here is that I am being singled out for "not following community decisions", while, at the same time, other users are doing whatever they like unchallenged, and some, like User:Zorahia, making a huge mess by adding vast amounts of information out of WS scope and in formats of his own unilateral choice! Mariusm, Franz Xaver, Dan_Koehl and a few others are simply playing political games for their own amusement. The most important consideration in relation to any user is "are they contributing correct and useful information in formats that are more or less appropriate?" If they are, and I am, then there are no justifiable grounds for blocking them out of WS. To reiterate one last point, I will respect any community decision that addresses the pros and cons of the proposal in a reasonable, unbiased and rational manner. I will not respect any decision which results from the same small group of users simply banging their collective fist on the table and demanding that all others obey ... Stho002 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver and Dan Koehl: it seems like both of you are on the same page that he needs to have an attitude that respects community consensus. Do you feel like his edits since unblocking (particularly in the main namespace) are consistent with that? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PEarley (WMF): @Koavf: I do not respect the "consensus" of an aggressive subset of the WS community, while everyone else here is too intimidated by them to speak out. It is a false "consensus". It is "mob rule". It is wrong and I will fight it to the bitter end. Re-block me and I will just start regular socking again. Koavf has already commented to me by email that [quote]Mariusm is going over the line some in his behavior and it shows[unquote], so punish him, not me. He is a sysop behaving very badly! ... Stho002 (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stho002: I suggest you take a little while to cool off. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: You ask: what would be the terms which can be acceptable for Stho002's return. Very well, I will answer you very simply:

  • To accept the WS community consensus as expressed in the help pages.
  • To respect the other WS users.

Can it be simpler than that?

Stho002 makes it clear that he doesn't intend to follow these simple rules. He tell us that "I do not respect the "consensus" of an aggressive subset of the WS community" and accuses us of "playing political games for their [he's speaking of me among others] own amusement". He tells us he uses "formats that are more or less appropriate". Really? More or less? Very funny indeed. @Koavf:, in your contract with Stho002 you gave him the overwhelming privilege that no-one can change his edits without his "permission" granted after discussing with him. Really? Is it a reasonable agreement? Is it a "prize" to reward his past behaviour? I wounder... Mariusm (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have well deserved my disrespect by their incessant bleating and personal attacks, shifting the terms of their criticisms of me from one thing to another. I do not have to respect Mariusm to have the right to edit here. The so-called "community consensus" is a sham, being based on the opposite of whatever my view was with complete disregard for the good of the project. Mariusm needs to stop haranguing me. His conduct is inappropriate for a sysop. He is out of control. He is a very bad man. He lies and changes his story to try to get what he wants. There is no rationality behind his words. Stho002 (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: "He is a very bad man. He lies [Stho002 speaking about me]" This is not what I mean by "To respect the other WS users" Mariusm (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm and Stho002: I suggest that you guys take 24 hours away from the VP. If you want to edit Wikispecies, then please go to a different namespace--it will help cooler heads prevail. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: Admin activity review

Hello. A new policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc) was adopted by global community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on smaller wikis. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the admin activity review.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for more than 2 years):

  1. EVula (bureaucrat, administrator)
  2. Ucucha (bureaucrat, administrator)

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki. Thanks, Rschen7754 00:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We just recently had a discussion about this and came to the decision, that the Meta admin activity review policy is fair and we don't need a local policy. --Murma174 (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template {{Sp}} modified - do you agree?

I noticed that template {{Sp}} which is used to list the species in a genus was modified by Koavf: the separators between the species were changed from "–" to "·" I think this change isn't well devised, as the separation gets blurred: it's difficult to distinguish between "·" and "." Another issue is the consistency with the templates {{G}} etc. Comments? Mariusm (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a new policy here on WS, to make changes with far-reaching consequences without prior discussion? Or is it just @Koavf:'s fun of provocation? --Murma174 (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It probably is the use of an ISO separator not a thumb in the eye, but I do prefer the old version aesthetically and on grounds of clarity. Andyboorman (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. This is a wiki, it's how wikis work. See also en:WP:BOLD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing:Thanks for the links, but these basic rules are misinterpreted by Koavf obviously. Quod licet Jovi . . . --Murma174 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a preference for the one or the other. However, this separation dot will save some space in very long lists. Anyway, this change was a surprise to me, as this was not announced at VP. It had the consequence, that I had to make some changes, as e.g. in Brackenridgea the change caused the list of "names in synonymy" to look ugly. OK, I agree to the change, but not to the way it happened.
The other point is, that, if the change is accepted, it must also be done with the templates {{G}}, {{Fam}}, etc. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the edit. The space saving is insignificant compared to the loss of clarity. Mariusm (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISO separator and internationalization I may not have made this clear from my edit summary but I changed this figure to a middot because that is an ISO-recommended character for list items. This helps internationalize the site and use standardized elements. Surely we can agree that is an important goal? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List format

Neither dots nor dashes should be used. Instead, the template should use list markup, styled to display horizontally. This is both semantically correct (we're showing a list of species) and has accessibility benefits. You can see this method in use on Wikispecies already, in {{Authority control}} - for example on my user page - where the various values are marked up as a list. The relevant styling is invoked by class="hlist". I've mocked that up (then rolled my edit back) here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver and Mariusm: Do you have a view on my suggestion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Yes I did. The divisions between the items look clearer with the bold "·" and the spaces. I wouldn't mind adopting it, but it necessitates enclosing the species list with a markup div which makes it hard to implement. Mariusm (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Please, have a close look at Brackenridgea#Names in synonymy. As it seems, your solution would not work properly with this list. Probably one more template {{Spfull}} would be necessary? If this can be fixed, I have no objections. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see a couple of ways of marking that up, but I'm not clear what the relationships between the parts are. Can you elaborate, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I noticed, you have tested a bit. However, I did not expect there would be any problems with the list of "accepted species", but I expect problems with the list "Names in synonymy" following. There, I listed also the name combinations in genera synonymous to Brackenridgea, e.g. Campylochnella and Campylopora. You will recognise immediately, that "C. xxx" would be ambiguous. So, I inserted the first one in each synonymous genus without template {{Sp}}, so that the full genus name shows up. When I inserted such an example into your Chrysaora list, previewing it without saving, I recognised, that the names would not continue in the same line. I suppose, every name has to be included in a specified template to make it working. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; yes, it was the latter section (which I also tested, but did not save) to which I was referring. Thank you for clarifying. I think the solution will be to add a |display=full parameter to {{Sp}}, rather than having another template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: P.S. Please see Template:Sp/Testcases, where I have implemented the latter feature. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That looks good. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works. Nice. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Agreed This is exactly how it should look. Do I take it that others support middots as separators in lists? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asking User:Stho002 an open question

User:Stho002 was unblocked on the terms devised solely between himself and Koavf. One of the terms include: "nobody touches these [Stho002's edits] without discussion with me [Stho002] and then if necessary on VP (if I don't reply within 24 hrs then they can go ahead)". It seems to me a very peculiar term considering his multiple edits – all of them harboring non-standard formatting.

I want to ask Stho002 a simple question which will reveal his intentions:

  • @Stho002:, Are you prepared to comply with the page-formatting as specified in the help pages, being the current consensus of WS? Yes or no?

Lets take one particular show-case: The name-section formatting.

The Help page specifies this format very clearly: "the author is linked to author pages, for which Wikispecies has a whole section of articles." Stho002 idiosyncratic practice is to link the name to the citation template (See for example the page Americovibone remota). I'll ask then specifically:

  • @Stho002:, are you prepared to link the Author in the Name-section to the Author's-page, as practiced by everyone else here save for you? Yes or no? Mariusm (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I am not! That "consensus" was made without consideration of my input and in diregard and disrespect of rationality. There are overwhelmingly good rational reasons for linking to the ref. template. It is not simply a matter of my personal preference. I'm not going to bother to tell you those reasons yet again, simply because I know that you will simply disregard them again. As @Tommy Kronkvist: agreed with me, a biased "consensus" isn't a true consensus. At any rate, I am not trying to force anyone else here to link to ref. templates. They can do what they want. As long as a created page is more useful than no page, I'm not going to kick up a fuss and use minor formatting issues as political weapons ... Stho002 (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I expected this sort of answer. What Stho002 actually says is: I don't care what the WS community decisions or standards are, I'm going to edit in my own format and in my own style, and you are not allowed to intervene or to correct it. Can we tolerate this attitude? I think we can't. Why bother fixing WS standards, rules, formats, if they are openly and plainly disregarded? If we can't correct pages to reflect these standards? And this attitude is manifested while his blocking is being debated! Imagine what his attitude be when he gets a clear pass to rejoin WS! Mariusm (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it the same way as User:Mariusm. --Murma174 (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this doesn't really sound very good. Especially in this case, the respect and locality with the rest of the community is vital, as well as general social attitude. Sth002´s answer makes me think twice regarding the poll about him... I really would have expected a higher degree of cooperation. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see if I got it right:

  1. Stho002 openly admits he won't comply with WS rules and conventions.
  2. Stho002 openly calls us "toxic community making bad decisions" and "group of selfish users ruin it [Wikispecies] for future generations".
  3. Stho002 enjoys the unheard-of privilege that no-one is allowed to change his edits unless he gets "permission" from him following discusion on his talk page or on VP.
  4. All this is manifested even when he stands in "probation" while his unblocking is debated.

Please reflect on these points before voting on his unblocking. Mariusm (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name Section

This discussion has been prompted by "Asking Stho002 an open question", but has no relevance to it. However, it does concern Help Name Section itself. This has been written for zoology and is incorrect for botany where we do not use the simple Taxon Author Date format, except when citing in-text. We use the convention seen here Ryticaryum Becc., Malesia 1: 120. 1877. and here Platea Blume Bijdr. Fl. Ned. Ind. 646. (1826). Brackets around the date are optional, but I have been told are more accessible. The direct link to the BHL protologue page for Ryticaryum is of course a WS option. Just type any plant genus or species into IPNI, APC/APNI, APD, WCSP (restricted list) and also look at papers describing plants, such as Emmotium harleyi. I have no idea what are the relevant conventions for bacteria etc.. In addition, I am concerned with this statement "It should at least contain the name of the taxon.", which I believe encourages lazy editing and is incorrect on all levels. I raise this here, as I would like the Help Section rewritten unless there are very good reasons for not doing so. I know this has been raised in the past, but has got nowhere and if we are looking at raising the quality of WS then it is important, IMHO. Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to the botanical code of nomenclature, contrary to zoology, the year of publication is not part of the full scientific name. However, it is common practice in botany, that after the name (genus+species epithet+author combination) follows an abbreviated protologue reference which includes the year of publication. Andy has given some examples. There exist standard abbreviations for publications, accessible through IPNI. In my opinion, the help page should be changed accordingly. Would you agree? --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is appropriate to do this so that the suggestions at least differentiate Zoology and Botany common practices, I also am not sure of the practices and requirements of the other codes. Cheers Faendalimas talk 21:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also have the notion that the help section needs to be revised. @Andyboorman: can you give it a try? Mariusm (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK will give it a go, but have to do family things for a few days yet. Later in the week should be OK. Andyboorman (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── I agree with all of you – this needs to be mended. Actually most of the "Help" pages are a bit untidy. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Wikidata update

Less than 50 pages without Wikidata item left! Gotta collect them all! --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]